focus on her, which a lot of people would love to hear more about it. i can sit here and drone on about her record from here to kingdom come, but i can only do so much. they want to hear from her and they should. >> it is not friday, but you on the week, my friend. you had 100 followers when this started. it is 12,000 and going now. get this young brother to 1 million. he deserves it. marcus johnson, it is not even friday, but you one the week, my friend. >> i appreciate it, thank you so much for having me. >> thank you very much and that is 10 nights "reidout". don't go anywhere. next, rachel maddow joins chris hayes for a special edition of "all in" and that starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> at its core, the defendant donald trump scheme was a private criminal effort. >> a stunning filing from the

special counsel. >> there is a whole lot here that we have never before seen. >> 165 pages laying out the case against donald trump. >> there are many dozens of bombshells here and people right now are poring over them. >> and what he did on january 6. >> at the prospect of mike pence being killed or harmed, donald trump, what jack smith found was donald trump's response was, quote, so what? >> 35 days before the election, new details on how the republican candidate for president tried to overthrow the last election. rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell join me live tonight. then -- >> did he lose the 2020 election? >> tim, i'm focused on the future. >> senator murphy on the republican plan to subvert this election. plus the threat of regional war as israel invades lebanon. my interview on his brand-new

book, when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i am chris hayes. just 34 days out from the election and voting has already started in a number of states. the judge in donald trump's january 6 special counsel case has unsealed a new court filing this afternoon. in the filing special counsel jack smith outlines with new details why donald trump should be federally prosecuted for his attempted coup. so we have a special show tonight. i will be joined in just a moment by rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell. you see them both there with the magic of television. they will help me break down the breaking news. the filing is 165 pages long, roughly half of which made up a new summary of the case. as prosecutors put it, when trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office. with private co-conspirators the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans

to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he lost. it also explains why donald trump was not acting in an official capacity as president when he schemed to steal the 2020 election. that distinction, obviously very important in light of this summer's ruling by the supreme court which basically said the president of the united states is kind of above the law. he or she can act with impunity, like a dictator working, as long as whatever they do can be justified as an official act of the office of the president and that is why jack smith argues that trump was acting as a candidate, as a private citizen fundamentally, a candidate for office when he tried to overturn the election and therefore should still be eligible for prosecution. the special counsel office rights, although trump was the incumbent president during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. working with a team of private co-conspirators, trump acted as

a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt through fraud and deceit the government function through which boats are collected and counted. a function through which the defendant as president had no official role. smith also provides multiple new anecdotes from trump's campaign inner circle, outlining what prosecutors say was this willful scheme to defraud the american people. in the immediate post election, while trump claimed fraud without proof, his private operatives sought to create chaos rather than seek clarity at polling places tableting votes. on november 4, someone identified as person five, campaign employee, agent, and co-conspirator of the defendant, tried to sow confusion when the ongoing vote count in detroit, michigan looked unfavorable to trump. a colleague at the tcf center told person five we think a batch of votes heavily in biden's favor is right. person five responded, find a

reason it isn't. give me options to file litigation. the colleague suggested there was about to be undressed, reminiscent of the brooks brothers riot. person five responded, make them riot and do it. make them riot. of course eventually we did get a riot. it was not like the brooks brothers riot in 2000 where republican operatives posed as protesters to demonstrate at the miami dade county election office and then tried to force their way inside in an effort to stop the recount of florida election ballots. this was far worse and more widespread. a full-fledged deadly insurrection at our nations capital unlike anything we have ever seen. capital ransacked. police officers having their brains bashed in. it was the end result of donald trump scheme to pressure his running mate and vice president to overturn the election that they have lost without any legal or factual basis.

when it became clear that mike pence was not going to go along with the two, donald trump, well, he unleashed the rioters on him. >> we just heard that mike pence is not going to reject any fraudulent electoral votes. that's right. you heard it here first. mike pence has betrayed the united states of america. >> hang mike pence! hang mike pence! >> pence was sent down in the basement of the capitol for his own safety while a violent mob urged on by donald trump ravaged the capital, setting up a gallows outside. in addition to a lengthy recounting of trump's many efforts to get pence to steal the election, the new filing

also provides insight to what was going through trump's head when he learned his running mate was in danger. upon receiving a phone call alerting him that pence had been taken to a secure location, someone identified as person 15 rushed to the dining room to inform trump in hopes that trump would take action to ensure pence's safety. instead, after person 15 delivered the news, trump looked at him and said only, so what? i am joined now by rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell. it is good to have you here. first i am just very curious to get your initial thoughts, having had a little bit of time to go through the filing. rachel, i will start with you. >> it strikes me that there are two things here that are interesting. i don't know if surprising is the right word, but it seems substantial and important. first is why does this filing have two exist? we already have a superseding indictment. well, this is to show the court

that the immunity ruling from the supreme court did not think this case. there are a number of assertions at various levels of specificity in the filings, saying listen, trump was not doing this because he was president of the united states. he was doing this as somebody running to try to win the next term as president of the united states. he was doing this privately. there are great, very quotable lines. the executive branch has no authority or function to choose the next president. so to the extent that trump was trying to affect the choice of the next president, he is doing so as a candidate and as an interested party, but not as president. also the defendant had no official responsibilities related to the states administration of the election or the appointment of the electors. the president has nothing to do with that, so when he is pressuring state officials, talking to state officials about choosing their electors, he is doing something for which there is no presidential

official responsibility, so he cannot be immune from prosecution on those things on the basis of the fact that he was president when he did it. that very clear, like 10,000 layers of argument on that i feel like is a very strong assertion from jack smith, from the prosecutors in the federal case, that the case is not sunk. the other thing that i think is important is that this happens right on the heels, within 24 hours, of j.d. vance rolling out among the most shameless smooth talking revisionist history about what donald trump did on january 6 and what happened at the end of the 2020 election than we have ever seen. usually that kind of stuff is delivered to a maga audience. last night it was delivered to more than 40 million americans by a guy who is very smooth talking and portrayed it as if it is no big deal and maybe it is only the democrats who think this is a big deal. this shows that that

revisionist history is absolute punk and when the court inevitably moves forward on the basis of this filing and says trump is not immune, this proves the case against him, the criminal case against him is very strong and very detailed. it arrives sort of right in time i think to cut off what i think was the biggest blast and the most effective attempt at revisionist history on january 6 that we have yet seen and it happened last night. >> on the first of those two points, i will come to you in a second, lawrence, but on the first of those two points i recall as i was reading the filing today, there is a moment in those arguments that is a disaster in many cases and shocking and appalling, if i can editorialize. there is a moment when amy coney barrett intervenes essentially to do proactively what was done here, where she asks trump's lawyers, calling the electors, is that an official act? he is like, probably not. she goes through a bunch of the things asserted in the

indictment to say we don't think those are official acts, do we? it is interesting to see that come back around is essentially the core argument being made over the course of 165 pages. partly because of the ruling john roberts came up with. lawrence, your thoughts? >> i'm going to go to the highest authority i can go to tonight at 10:00 on this very issue that rachel was describing, which is how the supreme court basically sent this back to the trial court and jack smith to determine what, if anything from the indictment can be prosecuted and this is smith's answer, which is to say, well, everything. there is one meeting which involved the justice department. >> that one meeting where we should say roberts goes out of his way. >> right, but what you do have in here, and i remember the day the supreme court ruling came out, my first reaction to it was that this was going to

happen. i anticipated it happening in an actual fact-finding hearing with witnesses where we would hear mike pence. that might be the next stage of this. it could go to that, but as of now it seems like judge chutkan wants to handle it on paper and you can see how powerful the paper is and you can see the power that a federal prosecutor has in subpoena power that the congress doesn't. when you look at page 67, the source of the quotes in the second paragraph are mike pence as, quote, five pages of contemporaneous notes of a meeting with the president at the time. there is the vice president writing it all down. >> what you better do any time you talk to the guy. >> and jack smith has all those notes. the other thing, 165 pages is not the book length version of this, but it is the screenplay length and you can see the through line all the way to january 6. i have to say before all of these pieces were

fragments that were floating, now it creates the perfect lead- in to january 6, wherein jack smith says having tried everything, having tried absolutely everything, by the time donald trump stood up to make that speech to his crowd on january 6, he had only one hope left and that was his crowd. to send his crowd up to the capital to stop the counting of the electoral college votes. >> that point about the drama in the document and the narrative arc of it, specifically the pressure on pence, which comes through on the january 6 committee report and is really a focus here. on january 5 the defendant told pence i think you have the power to decertified. when he was unmoved the defendant threatened to criticize him publicly. we know what that means. i'm going to have to say you did a great disservice. it's possible again.

it is easy to lose track of what has been entered on the public record and hasn't, but this timing of that tweet, i think that is nick fuentes, who dined with the president, reading out about pence not doing what he is called to do. trump was alone in the dining room when he issued a tweet attacking pins and fueling the ongoing riot. mike pence didn't have the courage to do what should be done to protect our country and our constitution. not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certified. jack smith writes, one minute later, at 2:25 p.m., the secret service was forced to evacuate pence to a secure location. rachel, it does not quite say cause and effect, but it lays the cause and effect right next to each other in adjacent sentences. >> there is so much detail that they are presenting about that tweet in the context of it.

they go to great lengths and great detail to explain that trump was alone in the dining room off the oval office when he sent it. they go to great lengths to say that yes, there was another staffer who was sort of cleared to tweet in trump's name, but he did not do that tweet. they go to great lengths to show that at the time that trump's and that tweet, while he was alone and nobody else was there, it was definitely him who did it. he was both watching fox news which had already reported at that point and was continually reporting that the capital had been breached. that the rioters made their way inside congress, where mike pence was. he was also watching twitter where it was being reported in real time. they go through all of those details, like it was him and this is what he knew when he did it and then they establish some of the other things he tweeted around the election and january 6. arguably the supreme court rules around these things could be construed as official

actions. when he did send statements in a milquetoast way that said people should go home and peace and love. that was a presidential thing to do. he was acting on the interests of the u.s. government. when he said mike pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done, there is nothing presidential about it. there is no way that this can be construed as doing anything other than advancing his personal, private criminal interest in that moment. they cover every single angle of it in a way that it just feels like a straight jacket. >> there is also something you mentioned before and we were sitting together on the day of that immunity oral arguments and decision. this effort, a largely successful effort aided by the supreme court to make all of this disappear down the memory hole. as we sit here 34 days before the election and we all know that everyone who covers this across the ideological spectrum

understands he will try to do the same thing again. that is obviously a certainty, right? particularly relevant after your line about j.d. vance being the first vice presidential nominee not to know who won the previous election. the defendant and co- conspirators also demonstrated the deliberate disregard for the truth when they repeatedly changed the numbers. i love this. changed the numbers in their baseless fraud allegations from day today. the conspirators started with the allegation that 36,000 noncitizens voted in arizona. five days later it was beyond credulity that a few hundred thousand didn't go. later the minimum was 40 or 50,000. >> the timing of this, less than 24 hours after we saw j.d. vance on the debate stage, unable to answer the question, did donald trump lose the election? and j.d. vance having publicly already

said he would not have done what mike pence did. donald trump would only have two ask him once. in fact might not even have to ask him. >> he might do it proactively. >> then for this document to emerge today where the star of today's document is mike pence. because he has not been in anything else we have been able to read, so this really is mike pence's moment in this story today and every single step of this story that mike pence is in, mike pence is doing and saying the right thing every time. he is saying and doing what he was elected to do. what his oath of office told him to do, which is when donald trump says to him you really should do this, every single time, every time he says no. every single time. >> against interest and political pressure. rachel. >> i just wanted to jump in and follow in the shadow of what lawrence just said.

you noticed that it is hard to keep track of what is in the public record and this feels like the screenplay version and helps you connect different things. one of the things i never connected before that is described on page 63 of this document. we knew from mike pence's memoir that when he was making clear as of new year's day, january 1, that he was not going to go along with this, that the lobbying of him was not working. we know from his memoir that trump threatened him and said, quote, hundreds of thousands of people are, quote, going to hate your guts. we knew he had done that. what i did not know before reading this today is that he is threatening that hundreds of thousands of people are going to effectively come after him for what he is doing and then immediately after he says that, immediately afterwards, he tweets a reminder to all of his supporters to make sure you are going to be in washington, d.c. on january 6. when he makes

that threat he already announces it will be wild. he tells them hundreds of thousands of people are going to come for you and then he gets a reminder on twitter telling people that they need to show up so that he can make good on the threat. it is just wielding the promise of an angry mob as a deliberate threat and is one that he is planning to make good on and i have never seen that laid out that way before, even though i knew the individual pieces of it and it sent a chill down my spine. >> rachel, the dialogue you pointed out, there is a key line at the end that would play to the jury so perfectly. when donald trump is saying to mike pence that you really ought to do this, he's telling mike pence that people will be disappointed in you. his last line to mike pence is you are too honest. that tells you what donald trump thinks the truth is, that mike

pence is telling the truth. you are too honest, mike pence. >> you are too honest being an admission of guilt. >> state of mind for donald trump exists throughout the document, including you are too honest. but they carry the proof years after the fact, right up until 2023, where they are quoting donald trump, praising the people who attacked the capitol, calling the martyrs, calling them heroes, calling them patriots. it specifies that he raises money for them. that he praises them at campaign events and place their song at campaign events. that all goes into donald trump's mind about what he was actually doing and how willful it was. >> one of the things that shows up, rachel, to what you said about all of the stuff he has done subsequently about these folks who are his people. from signing the backpack of the woman who came to the event to the choir song being played at the rally to the promises of

pardons, which essentially none of that is explicitly criminal activity. to show it is essentially a continuation of what was happening in the run-up to the aftermath. >> and page, you heard today is a 165 page document. there is a whole lot of stuff that is still redacted that we have not seen it all. appendices to this document that may yet be released and who knows when that will be. to the end of this document, page 162 and 163, they explicitly say that his postpresidential statements go to explain his intent. his endorsements of the violent actions of the supporters in an ongoing way and the promises of pardons and lie ionizing them in celebrating them and justifying it. those things may be distasteful but not criminal unless it is

used against you because it shows you are encouraging their actions, believed in their actions and were on their side and trying to use them as a lever in your personal crimes. >> it is not, i think, particularly useful or edifying for me to say this. it did make me enraged at the supreme court all over again. the degree to which the plain facts of this, everything that has been established, all of the due diligence, all of the things we saw happen in real- time, the impeachment, the january 6 committee, this, it was all there and should have been essentially prosecuted like a normal crime. it is not happening. this is what we have and i am glad we have it, but it is an outrage. >> i would recommend saving some rage for the next decision on this very same thing. because whatever judge chutkan decides, the trump side is going to appeal her decision on this. it's going to go to the appeals

court. the appeals court is going to rule however they rule and then it will go to the supreme court. so the supreme court will get another look at the way jack smith has presented this. >> rachel. >> but importantly, when they do that, they will at least be unable to run away from the factual contentions laid out by jack smith. one of the things that was most enraging about the oral argument and the ruling by chief justice roberts in the immunity case was they kept saying whatever the facts are here. we don't need to engage with what happened. this is high-minded constitutional thinking. we don't need to get into the specifics of what happened. well, yeah you do because you're ridiculous immunity ruling makes us have to parse every individual action to parts whether it is official or not official at all in this bizarre system you made up. that means we need to go through the facts of every single one of these things and here is the factual record.

and him saying, so what, when he was confronted with the physical peril he put his vice president in. here he is saying the details don't matter when he was told by his legal counsel that what he is proposing is illegal and will not stand up in court. the factual record is for the public, but also to ultimately embarrass those justices if they want to keep the charade going through another round. >> just as a final thought here. lawrence, you know there is this hidden wriggling out of things over and over again. some things he has not been able to wriggle out of. he defamed e. jean carroll and a jury of his peers said that he sexually assaulted her and defamed her, but it is a reminder that they have a very good case. there is an actual federal case. the man has been indicted for multiple felonies with an extensive set of interviews. it is not inconceivable it will go to trial one day and there will be some criminal accountability.

>> if kamala harris wins the presidency as i expect her to, this will go to trial. it won't go to trial next year because it has to roll through the appeals system one more time. a lot of this is going to survive. it may be that the supreme court tries to pull out the mike pence stuff and say that is an official conversation with his governing partner. they might try to do that. there might be five of them want to do that, but they will not be able to pull out him calling the speaker of the house in arizona or the secretary of state in georgia. there will be something that survives of this criminal indictment. he will face trial on this at some point. >> rachel maddow will be back monday with another absolute must watch episode of the rachel maddow show and lawrence o'donnell will be back here 10:00 p.m. with the last word and the guest you probably want to speak to more than anyone other than rachel and lawrence, which is cassidy hutchinson. she will be on lawrence's program.

i will be watching for that. i want to do now to mary mccord. she served as a federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years. his cohost of the prosecuting donald trump podcast and i think lawrence's last words are a very useful segway for your reading of this document through the, let's be clear, pretty complicated and contorted set of tests that justice roberts set up in the immunity decision. >> yes i think what we see in this document, we spent a lot of time with your previous guest talking about, with rachel and lawrence, talking about the facts that are in here, specifically with respect to mike pence. i will note that one charge that is not in this indictment but is supported by those facts is solicitation of a crime of violence against his own vice president. because with intent that a person commit a crime and violence and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, the persuading others to commit

a crime of violence is itself a crime. but he is not charged with that. i just want to say everything you all have been talking about would really lead to that crime. but what we see in the legal analysis that jack smith does where he applies the supreme court immunity ruling to the facts, they really go chapter and verse through not only what the majority laid out when it talked about with respect to mike pence those discussions. we are going to call those official. the question is, government can you rebut the presumption of immunity by showing that prosecution related to the pressure on mike pence would pose no dangers to interfering with the functions of the executive branch. the authority and functions of the executive branch. what jack smith is saying, these are for the reasons that rachel pointed out, that because the executive branch and the president has no role, and this is by our constitutional system, in choosing the next president. and mike pence in his role as president of the senate, not as

vice president, has nothing other than a ministerial role in opening the ballots and then being counted. that there is no way that charging and convicting on those allegations could interfere with the functions and authority of the executive branch. then jack smith goes on and does that with respect to all of the other aspects of the scheme. first, these things are not official acts. they are private. he was in his conduct as a candidate, et cetera, et cetera, and even if they were he can read about the assumption. last point on that, amy coney barrett in her concurrence, she led the way. she said i think the majority should have answered some of these questions and she said in my opinion, donald trump's efforts to orchestrate the fraudulent elect or scheme is purely private conduct because he has no role as president in the states choosing electors. she also said that in her view the pressure on state

legislatures, for example in arizona, the speaker of the house. because there is no authority of the president to have anything to do with how states choose their electors, that there is no way that that kind of thing, that kind of prosecution would intrude on the functions of the executive branch. so he is following her lead and the lead of the majority. >> that is a great point about amy coney barrett's concurrence, but she does hop off that opinion at a few points and this is going to go back to the supreme court, obviously and they're going to have to rule on it one way. if you are already counting to four, the chevy thinking by jack smith knowing he has to count to five when he gets back up there. mary mccord, thank you very much. appreciate it. coming up, after donald trump hangs his first vice president out to dry, the man looking to fill those shoes shows he is down to two.

then we learned about bulkamid - an fda-approved, non-drug solution for our condition. it really works, and it lasts for years. it's been the best thing we've done for our families. visit findrealrelief.com to find an expert physician near you. ask if bulkamid is right for you and discuss potential risks. results and experiences may vary. move beyond the leaks. when did i call leaffilter? when i saw my gutters overflowing onto my porch. leaffilter is a permanent gutter solution, so, you never have to worry about costly damage from clogged gutters again. it's the easiest call you can make. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.com. (vo) dan made progress with his mental health, it's the easiest call you can make. but his medication caused unintentional movements in his face, hands, and feet called tardive dyskinesia, or td. so his doctor prescribed austedo xr— a once-daily, extended-release td treatment for adults. ♪ as you go with austedo ♪ austedo xr significantly reduced dan's td movements. some people saw a response as early as 2 weeks. with austedo xr, dan can stay on his mental health meds—

(dan) cool hair! (vo) austedo xr can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, or have suicidal thoughts. don't take if you have liver problems, are taking reserpine, tetrabenazine, or valbenazine. austedo xr may cause irregular or fast heartbeat, or abnormal movements. seek help for fever, stiff muscles, problems thinking, or sweating. common side effects include inflammation of the nose and throat, insomnia and sleepiness. ♪ as you go with austedo ♪ ask your doctor for austedo xr. ♪ austedo xr ♪ here's something you may not know about glp-1 weight loss meds. noom glp-1 companion users report losing 48% more weight than when taking meds alone. powerful weight loss meds deserve a powerful companion. get noom glp-1, now available at noom.com.

there is of course a reason that donald trump's first vice president, mike pence, was not on the debate stage with tim walz last night. trump dumped pence because he refused to go along with the attempted to, so trump picked a replacement to a dish and by basically saying he would do what pence refused to do. last night, speaking to an audience of 43 million americans, senator j.d. vance would not even admit that trump lost last time around. >> the world saw it on the debate stage a few weeks ago. >> harris censored americans from speaking her mind in the wake of the 2020 covid situation. >> that is a damning nonanswer. >> chris murphy is a democrat of connecticut and joins me now. senator, you serve with j.d. vance and i thought it was interesting last night because at some level, to me it showed

the conundrum of the politics at this moment. there were parts of the debate that felt essentially normal. back-and-forth on housing policy. stuff on child care. then you get to that part of the debate. it is like who won the 2020 debate and you are sort of hold back to what has happened in american politics in this era. how did you see it? >> because tim walz is a really normal guy. a congenial guy. he likes to get along with everybody. he did a great job in the debate last night, but america saw the real tim walz, who is your neighbor. but that was an exceptional moment. i'm glad that tim walz called him out. his truth. j.d. vance is truth is that he is deeply nested inside a right- wing infrastructure that has an open disdain for democracy. j.d. vance does not believe that democracy is relevant any longer and he signed up for this mission with donald trump

because he is very willing to go along with this ride from democracy to some form of autocracy. he very deliberately during the trial process to be donald trump's vice president, went on tv and declared that if he had been in that chair that mike pence sat in, he would not have certified the results leading to a constitutional crisis and that is probably the reason that donald trump picked him. so you saw at the end of that debate what the stakes are here. donald trump and j.d. vance are auditioning to transition us to something that looks incredibly different from what america has lived under for the last 240 years and i was glad tim walz did not at that moment passed by. >> it is interesting. a debate like that is like a football game when you can see the linebackers on their heels or leaning forward and there are different parts where you can watch a politician who is excited to talk about that topic and trying to just sort

of get out of the discussion and i thought the exchange on guns was one of theirs where i thought tim walz was very good and j.d. vance was basically trying to get out of that passage. and i want to play you part of what he said as a way of moving onto the next topic on gun violence in our country, particularly in schools. take a listen. >> i unfortunately think that we have to increase security in our schools. we have to make the doors locked better. we have to make the doors stronger. we have to make the window stronger and we have to increase school resource officers. because the idea that we can magically wave a wand and take guns out of the hands of bad guys, it just does not fit with recent experience. >> i am curious what you thought about that exchange. >> what a joke of an answer. of course no one is suggesting we should wave a magic wand, nor do we have the capability to do it. what we know is that states that are more serious about

keeping guns out of the hands of mad men have much lower rates of gun violence. we have plenty of experience to know that societies, countries and states that are a little tougher on making sure guns don't get into the hands of dangerous people, those states, those countries, those societies save lives. listen, tell the parents and kids at uvalde that what we need is more good guys with guns, inside and outside of our schools. i'm not saying that there aren't instances where armed security officers make a difference, but by and large what we know is that these young men armed with military style assault weapons unfortunately can do enormous amounts of damage in short amounts of time. there were 300 armed men in the hallway and outside that schooling uvalde and they were powerless, powerless to stop that massacre. that is the rule, not the exception. j.d. vance knows that, which is why he was eager to start talking about something else. >> final question and at the

end here, the first question was about a preemptive attack by israel on iran's nuclear facilities. a first strike essentially with conventional weapons. i thought those answers were a bit of a wash and a bit of an odd question because it was about another countries decision-making. the president today said he opposes such a strike. what is your position? >> it is not a preemptive strike. iran has launched a barrage of missiles and israel has an obligation to respond. that is not a preemptive strike, that is a response. but i thought the exchange was really maddening to watch because j.d. vance made this allegation that donald trump had restored deterrence in the middle east, when exactly the opposite is true. iran and its proxies were not shooting at the united states when donald trump became president. it was only after donald trump withdrew the united states unilaterally from the nuclear agreement that iran started

shooting at our troops in the region. what happened during donald trump's presidency was that our troops were put at risk. iran went from a year away from a nuclear weapon to two months away from a nuclear weapon and we lost our multinational coalition, which included china and russia aligned against iran. donald trump's iran policy was a catastrophe and it was maddening to hear j.d. vance last night try to spin then untrue story. >> senator chris murphy of connecticut, thank you for your time tonight, sir. >> thank you. still to come, i spoke about his experience in israel and palestine and what he says americans need to know, ahead. one a day is formulated with key nutrients to support whole body health. one a day. science that matters. hayden: the fact st. jude will take care of all this, this is what's keeping my baby girl alive. chelsea: it's everything for us.

we wouldn't know what to do. we couldn't afford for our little girl to survive. and st. jude gives us that. [music playing] autumn is here. that means if you don't have leaffilter, you're stuck dealing with leaves, debris, all kinds of headaches. oh. excuse me. i'm sorry to interrupt. i'm ray sparks from 318 down the street. you did our gutters last year. the sparks family. we cleaned, sealed and installed leaffilter. yes, sir. of course. i love you, man. you make me feel so free. to schedule your free inspection, call 833 leaffilter today. or visit leaffilter.com hey, take a moment. do you know who we are? we are the kids you champion every day. we are the ones who dream big. and because of you, our dreams become a reality. these are more than just words. this is what we're all about. this is shriners children's™.

because for more than 100 years now, shriners children's™ has been on a mission to provide the most amazing care anywhere. and guess what? it's working with more than 100 access points to care shriners children's™ able to reach more kids in even more places all around the world. when we need them the most their amazing doctors and nurses are treating kids in the u.s., canada, mexico, and latin america. and they're helping kids from more than 100 other countries too. and the best part? they're doing all of this regardless of a family's ability to pay. and someone else helps make it all possible. you. tú. you. tú. you too. it's true. you're pretty awesome. when you go online to loveshriners.org or call this special number with your monthly gift, you'll make a difference too. your donation large or small helps shriners children's™ do new research creates life-changing treatments, and provide burn care to kids around the world.

every day, people like you give families like ours the hope and healing we need. and when you give your monthly gift of $19 or more. we'll send you your very own love to the rescue® blanket. it's a warm reminder of the incredible things you're making possible, and that you're a part of something special. because no matter where we come from or what language we speak, every kid deserves the most amazing care anywhere. so how can you help? take a moment. call or go online to loveshriners.org right away and start filling our world with more hope, healing and possibilities.

[uplifting music] arearn: saint jude-- they gave it 110% every time. and for kenadie to get treatment here

without having to pay anything was amazing. israel is vowing a swift and significant retaliation against iran for its missile attack yesterday. it is unclear when that will happen and what that will look like. earlier today president biden did say he would not support israel attacking iran's nuclear facilities and that israel's response should be kept in proportion. at this stage it is hard to know what proportional means. yesterday's barrage of nearly 200 iranian ballistic missiles was aimed mostly at military targets according to iranian officials. one reportedly landed near tel aviv and another near a school. the totality of the missiles were mostly shut down by israel with the help of u.s. forces

and other allies. so far there is one confirmed the death of a palestinian man in the west bank. ahead of those strikes, seven people were killed in a stabbing and shooting attack for which hamas claimed responsibility. if all that isn't enough to make one worry that things are spiraling out of control, israel is continuing strikes in beirut, lebanon, and its ground invasion of that country. over 1000 people in lebanon have been killed in these attacks and as many as 1 million have been displaced according to officials. meanwhile the war in gaza is still happening. over 41,000 palestinians have been killed. the images out of gaza continue to be disturbing and horrific. it is hard not to hear about all of this and not wonder, how do we avoid the worst outcome of all this? last week i had a chance to sit down with writer ta-nehisi coates, whose new book, the message, took him to israel and the west bank. we had a truly fascinating conversation and you will hear that interview next. because the rightrch is being shanow across the u.s.,ld.

people are trying to ban books from public schools and public libraries. yes, libraries. we all have a first amendment right to read and learn different viewpoints. that's why every book belongs on the shelf. yet book banning in the u.s. is worse than i've ever seen. it's people in power who want to control everything. well, i say no to censorship. and i say yes to freedom of speech and expression. if you do too, please join us in supporting the american civil liberties union today. for over 100 years, the aclu has fought for your rights and mine.

including the right to read all manner of books. so please call or go online to myaclu.org. for just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. you can become a guardian of liberty and help protect all the rights promised to us by the u.s. constitution. make no mistake, this move to ban books is a coordinated attack on students right to learn. this is a clear violation of free speech. that's why the aclu is working to fight against censorship in all its forms. it is so important now more than ever. so please call or go to myaclu.org and become an aclu guardian of liberty, for just $19 a month. use your credit card and you'll get this special we the people t-shirt and more to show you're helping to protect the rights of all people. the aclu is in all 50 states, d.c. and

puerto rico defending our first amendment right of free speech and all of your constitutional rights. because we the people, means all of us. so please, call or, go online to myaclu.org today. speaker: my little miracle is beckett. [christina perri, "a thousand years"] i have died every day waiting for you. we wouldn't be where we are without saint jude. and in turn, we wouldn't be where we are without those people that have donated.

i think a lot of you are watching what's happening in

the middle east are not themselves connected to it for familiar ties or religious. for us that are. the only thing for me that provided some clarity is when i visited israel in the west bank 15 years ago as a reporter. as i arrived in the nation, 2020, to see visually the status quo in the west band cannot hold. to see it is to understand just what occupation requires. it's a clarifying experience. in his new book the message, the phenomenal writer charts his own clarifying experience visiting the region. across what are effectively three travel coats describes his time in israel in south carolina where a fight to ban his book between the world and me was unfolding. the message is a beautiful love letter to writing itself and the moral duty that comes with it. i think if you feel similar

cross measure pressure in the middle east you may find it a good read. before this latest round of escalation i was able to sit down with my good friend to discuss it. >> i'm going start with this with the book, because i think it sets up our conversation and all the coffin srer saeugss that you will be having the next few weeks. you said jamal khashoggi was fond of the arabic proverb. this part of the gig i think is your least favorite. >> well being here with you is not. you know, the thing i was actually thinking of was this sort of discourse that happens. when writers write what they right and somebody replies then the writer decides they need to clarify. i've engaged in that in the

past. >> it's a trap. >> oh yeah, i don't think it's really helped me. >> part of what makes this book great. i was raving about it. they asked what's it about and i was brought up a little short. >> you and me both. >> well, as much of anything it's a love letter to writing. >> yes, it is. yes. >> and part of what comes true is the work that goes into the clarity of writing is almost impossible to do in any other meaning. >> yeah, and that was like a really, really important thing for me. i think people forget that. obviously visit you is so important. here. but i think people really forget that at the base of it, somebody has to write something down. you know, and when i was teaching at the university with so much, still teaching but that's where this book coming out of. the thing i tell my students, the process of learning to

express yourself with clarity is valuable. it's valuable no matter what you go on and do. the things that i try to do in the extreme in order to write a book like that is no different than the things i am trying to do when i'm trying to write a memo or e-mail. >> there are three essays in this book. the one that i think is probably going to get the most attention. >> dakar. >> exactly. how did you know? the most attention and most controversy and the most discourses about your trip to both israel and palestine. to the west bank and tel-a-viv and other parts of israel. just start by talking about your way into that story. you write a little bit about that in the essay. a few lines in the case reparations. that you felt like maybe you were glim about a history that was more complex. >> i think glim is the right word. when you're writing something

radical like i was at the time in the case for reparations. you're always trying to ground it in a real thing so that people can perceive it in the case of reparations. it was reparations and i want to be very clear about this from the state of germany to the state of actually west germany to the state of israel. not necessarily to holocaust victims. >> right. >> i neglected to ask a very important question. which is, what is the nature of that state? because for me the case for reparations was not simply about compensation for something that has been done. but about making the world safe from a particular kind of oppression at large. as it turned out, as was very clearly revealed to me when i did my travels to use the state of israel, reparations to the state of israel as an example actually undermined the very message i was trying to get across in the article. >> why is that?

>> because israel is an apartheid state. and i don't mean that as a slur. i mean that in repeating the reports of amnesty international. i mean that in reporting the rights of humane. i mean that in reporting the fears of israel's own prime ministers. i mean that in terms of what i actually saw which was a society in which half the people live and have the benefits of full citizenship and the others live in tiers below that. this was immediately clear to me the day i got there. certainly by the second day, when i was walking, i literally saw streets where certain people could walk down and certain people couldn't. where i could walk down as long as i was clear that i was not muslim. and other people could not. when it was made clear to me that i was with the group of people spending time with a group of people who should they

fall into any sort of trouble or get into any sort of trouble would be treated by the military justice system, while all around them were israeli jewish citizens who were subject to the benefits of the civil system. you could imagine the difference in the degree of harshness there and it went on. it went on. it was pretty clear in terms of the laws and the policies. >> i've been on the same streets in hebron and had the same reaction. that this is obviously an abomination. this is not morally acceptable to how do we have 15 million people between the river and

the sea with full equality, freedom. that is more flourish. >> that was the case for reparations because the other thing i was confirming was the extent to which palestinian forces had been completely pushed out of the frame. the first time is actually an easy one to elevate the voices of the people who are actually having the experience and ask them what should happen here. you know. and not one or two of them. but in some sort of mass way. in many ways that essay is about my complex relationship with journalism. which i love. which is a process i love which is one that i actually applied right there. but i have to tell you and i've said that and i will continue to say this. i would be very interested in how many major media organizations that have a bureau chief.

i would love to see those numbers. i think anybody should have the opportunity to work that kind of job just like i think anybody should be that opportunity to cover race in america. but if there were no black people doing it or very few. we would have a problem with that. >> ta nehihi coates is the author. you can get his book any where. >> you can watch the full interview on msnbc you tube page. that does it for us tonight. >> i'm as you know, as we all are, a great fan of ta-nehihi coats. you were lucky to